Illinois Law Grounds PETA Drones Meant To Harass Hunters 370
schwit1 writes "Illinois passed a new state law that set back the efforts of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), making the use of drones to interfere with hunters and fishermen prohibited. The law was created in response to PETA's plan to employ drones called "air angels" to monitor outdoors enthusiasts engaged in hunting and fishing nationwide."
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:2, Interesting)
On one side I don't like people who hunt for entertainment and on the other hand I don't like PETA. Can anyone suggest a solution that pisses both sides off?
Simply support maximum freedom. Let hunters use drones to stalk and harass PETA members. Let hunters field armed drones to disable or shoot down PETA drones, so long as the hunter pay for any property damage. Let hunters hunting on private land pursue legal remedies for trespassing if PETA drones fly over the property. PETA is backed by big money from limo liberals so they will be able to outspend your average hunter in the battle.
Incidentally, whether or not you "like" the way other people exercise their freedoms is irrelevant so long as it doesn't encroach on your freedom.
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Staged hunt? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is a lot of work, however it isn't the "hunter" who does it. The owner of the "hunting ground" is the one who does it and then charges parties to go out and shoot the animals. Lots of paying jobs are work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canned_hunt [wikipedia.org]
and from that article; doesn't talk about that particular incident, but one a couple of years before:
What kind of dick uses live animals just as targets and kills more than many families could eat in a single session? Dick Cheney does. Which I mean, I have no problem with animal slaughter for food or clothing but, we don't call people who work in slaughterhouses hunters.
Re:Shooting Them Down (Score:2, Interesting)
I would do the same thing, I love hunting it's what I do to get away from it all and I don't need some PETA hypocrite hovering their drone over me.
This makes me think of Maddox owning PETA
http://maddox.xmission.com/
Thank you for contacting PETA about animals killed during grain harvesting.
While it is true that animals are killed during harvesting, there is a lot
more to this story than meets the eye. First, we, and animals rights
advocates in general, are primarily concerned with preventing the suffering
of living animals. While millions of animals are killed each year in the
harvesting process, millions of animals suffer EVERY DAY in the meat
industry. BILLIONS of animals are tortured and slaughtered for food every
year in the United States alone. All of these animals being raised for meat
eat grain. In fact, they consume more than half of all of the grain produced
in this country. If the population of the United States were vegetarian, we
would actually require LESS grain, and thereby kill fewer animals during
harvesting. When you eat meat, not only are you contributing to the
suffering of the farmed animals, but you are also contributing to the
majority of the animals killed during harvesting.
If you have a moment, I'd like to know in which restaurant you saw this
"Guiltless Grill" menu section. Thanks again for your message. We appreciate
the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
Sincerely,
Cliff Kaminsky
PETA Correspondent
*Note: I have never contacted PETA. Someone sent my guiltless grill article to them and PETA decided to contact me instead.
PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Let's ignore for a moment that their name implies there exists a universal set of ethics, and instead let's focus on the meat of this email: PETA is "primarily concerned with preventing the suffering of living animals." Oh really? As opposed to preventing the suffering of dead animals? Good thing they clarified because I was confused and couldn't infer that when they said "animals" they didn't mean dead animals. Glad we have that cleared up, let's move on.
So what exactly constitutes as "prevention" of animal suffering? The moral vegetarians (not the ones who do it for religious or health reasons) love to chant "we're trying to limit the suffering." What the hell does that mean? If you eat wheat or soy, you're not limiting anything. Unless you plant, grow and pick your own crops, you're not doing everything you can to "limit" the suffering. You know deep down that you could help limit a whole lot more suffering, but you've chosen not to. You've chosen not to because your lifestyle is too convenient, and you'd have to give up too much, but nevermind that--you have a conscience to feel good about, and you can't let a little thing like millions of violent deaths of field animals get in the way of your moral trip.
Limit the suffering? That's like me saying I'm going to eat meat only 364 out of 365 days of the year in an effort to "limit" the suffering, I'm doing my part to prevent suffering. "BUT MADDOX, YOU COULD LIMIT A LOT MORE SUFFERING BY NOT EATING MEAT AT ALL!!!1" Exactly, and vegetarians could limit a lot more suffering by planting their own crops, but where do you draw the line? You claim to have compassion for animals, but just as soon as it gets too inconvenient you decide to call it quits? Cowards. You're no better off; not in my book. A murderer who kills 10 people is no better off than a murderer who kills 20 if the murder is avoidable. Of course, from the perspective of a suggestible young vegetarian I'm sure being responsible for half as many murders as the next guy means you're off the hook, right?
I keep getting email from moral vegetarians saying "HEY MADOX WE FEED MORE GRAIN TO ANIMALS AND IF YOU EAT THE ANIMALS YOU ARE KILLING TWICE AS MUCH." No shit? The only difference is that I'm not protesting at street corners about other peoples' diets--I'm not the one with a missio
Re: Land of the Free! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Land of the Free! (Score:4, Interesting)
Its a little of both (and I say that as an avid hunter).
I eat what I kill, and several deer in the freezer per year go a long ways in lowering how much meat I need to actually buy at the grocery store. Still, even hunting on a budget, the time commitment is still pretty steep. When you account for days when you see nothing and straight up scouting time, each deer taken is probably a 12-15 hour time commitment. With the idea that "time is money" I'm certainly not coming out ahead there, but I do actually enjoy the challenge and process of going out hunting, so it is indeed a recreational/sport activity as well.
I'd compare it to working a 2nd job - its pays a little but not much, but I enjoy it enough that I keep working.